quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus was NOT contrasting his command against the law, but against the interpretation of the Law by the Jewish Rabbis. In each and every case they had extended the Law to mean something that had never been intended. In the case of divorce, by the first century they had permitted divorce for nearly any reason (based on the teaching of Hillel), and death for adultery was something rarely if ever practiced. Jesus' teaching was a correction of the interpretation of the Law, not an abolishment of it. Jesus himself clearly said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." just moments before he spoke about the correct interpretation of the Law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

However, it is clear from historical records that stoning for adultery was not practiced in the first century; the record of Joseph and Mary is a good biblical example of this. Joseph was worrying about bringing public disgrace to Mary; he was not worried about killing her. Additionally, other writings from the first century also indicate the fact that capital punishment was seldom if ever used during the time of Christ for incidents of adultery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lastblast
How many of the people who who fight so hard to justify divorce/remarriage for adultery have committed adultery themselves------as defined and juged so by Jesus Christ!??

quote:

Adultery was a stonable offense---per the "law". It WAS being practiced in Jesus' day.

So, he did not want her either to be stoned, NOR suffer public disgrace through a public accusation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: Servant4theLord


The word of God is the absolute truth and this is what I stand on. Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Greetings Servant4,

Of course you know that this verse was included in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. In this section of the sermon Jesus was specifically "contrasting" His interpretation of the Law with that of the Jewish traditional interpretation: Ye have heard it was by them of old." And each time Jesus contradicted the traditional interpretation with the objection "BUT I SAY UNTO YOU.

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Again:

Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Adultery was a capital crime:

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Jesus did not come to destroy the Law ... But to fulfill the Law ... the Law did not provide a divorce clause for adultery ... it ONLY offered the DEATH penalty. This was not some form of a "mystical death" of the marriage ... it was the actual "literal death of both adulterer and adulteress."

Therefore the word "fornication" in Matt. 5:32 cannot mean "sexual impurity or immorality in full legal marriage" for even the event of looking upon the nakedness of another then the man's true wife was tantmount to adultery.

The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus was NOT contrasting his command against the law, but against the interpretation of the Law by the Jewish Rabbis. In each and every case they had extended the Law to mean something that had never been intended. In the case of divorce, by the first century they had permitted divorce for nearly any reason (based on the teaching of Hillel), and death for adultery was something rarely if ever practiced. Jesus' teaching was a correction of the interpretation of the Law, not an abolishment of it. Jesus himself clearly said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." just moments before he spoke about the correct interpretation of the Law.

quote:



Quote Huckfinn: In this section of the sermon Jesus was specifically "contrasting" His interpretation of the Law with that of the Jewish traditional interpretation: Ye have heard it was by them of old." And each time Jesus contradicted the traditional interpretation with the objection "BUT I SAY UNTO YOU.

Quote Benelchi: The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus was NOT contrasting his command against the law, but against the interpretation of the Law by the Jewish Rabbis.

Greetings Benelchi,

It appears to me that you have "repeated" the essence of my post point and then you mark your post as a contradiction to my post. But then you have gone one further by abolishing the Law of Lev. 20:10 death for adultery by your opinion that the Law of Lev. 20:10 was dissolved by the fact that it was "rarely-if-ever-practiced". This is squarely your "pirvate" interpretation and I believe you are in violation of laws of Biblical Interpretation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:



Quote Huckfinn: In this section of the sermon Jesus was specifically "contrasting" His interpretation of the Law with that of the Jewish traditional interpretation: Ye have heard it was by them of old." And each time Jesus contradicted the traditional interpretation with the objection "BUT I SAY UNTO YOU.

Quote Benelchi: The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus was NOT contrasting his command against the law, but against the interpretation of the Law by the Jewish Rabbis.

Greetings Benelchi,

It appears to me that you have "repeated" the essence of my post point and then you mark your post as a contradiction to my post. But then you have gone one further by abolishing the Law of Lev. 20:10 death for adultery by your opinion that the Law of Lev. 20:10 was dissolved by the fact that it was "rarely-if-ever-practiced". This is squarely your "pirvate" interpretation and I believe you are in violation of laws of Biblical Interpretation.

Let me first address the ridiculous claim that this is my "private" interpretation. The interpretation I shared is the one most commonly held among Christian scholars, pastors, and laity. Here are just a few references from my bookshelf that all share the same interpretation: "The expositor's bible commentary, Vol 9 (1981)", "The New Bible Commentary: Revised (1953)", "Notes: on The Gospel of John: Explanatory and Practical, John Clark D.D., (1879)"

Second, Hermeneutic principals i.e. the Laws of Biblical Interpretation require one to look at the entire context and culture to which a passage was first addressed before making interpretive decisions. In the case of Jn. 8:1-11 we know that:

1) The OT Law required both parties of adultery to be stoned, yet in the account in John's Gospel only the woman was brought. (Du. 22:22)

2) The OT Law required two witnesses to condemn a person to death (Du. 17:6-7), and apparently no witnesses were present in the account given in John's gospel.

3) The Talmudic Law added to the requirement that two witnesses must be present to condemn a person to death, the requirement that the same two witnesses had to have previously warned those who then still chose to continue in their sin.

4) The Talmudic Law required a trial for all death penalty cases.

5) The Talmudic Law required the witnesses to throw the first stone, but they apparently were absent.

6) The Roman Law did not permit any death penalty sentence to be carried out without the express approval of the Roman government.


Based on what we know from John's Gospel, and from the history of the first century, there is no reason to assume that Jesus was abolishing any Law because the case brought before him did not meet the legal requirement of any Law that allowed for a death sentence, not Laws from the Torah, nor Laws from the Talmud, nor the Roman Law. It is clear that the Jewish Rulers were trying to trap Jesus; they were not interested in following the Law. Jesus' response was not only legal, but it left the Jewish leaders without even the ability to raise an accusation against him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil

quote:

ORIGINAL: lastblast
How many of the people who who fight so hard to justify divorce/remarriage for adultery have committed adultery themselves------as defined and juged so by Jesus Christ!??

wait, Jesus's defition or lastblasts? cause the 351 pages of this thread clearly show they don't line up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:



Quote Huckfinn: In this section of the sermon Jesus was specifically "contrasting" His interpretation of the Law with that of the Jewish traditional interpretation: Ye have heard it was by them of old." And each time Jesus contradicted the traditional interpretation with the objection "BUT I SAY UNTO YOU.

Quote Benelchi: The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus was NOT contrasting his command against the law, but against the interpretation of the Law by the Jewish Rabbis.

Greetings Benelchi,

It appears to me that you have "repeated" the essence of my post point and then you mark your post as a contradiction to my post. But then you have gone one further by abolishing the Law of Lev. 20:10 death for adultery by your opinion that the Law of Lev. 20:10 was dissolved by the fact that it was "rarely-if-ever-practiced". This is squarely your "pirvate" interpretation and I believe you are in violation of laws of Biblical Interpretation.

Let me first address the ridiculous claim that this is my "private" interpretation. The interpretation I shared is the one most commonly held among Christian scholars, pastors, and laity. Here are just a few references from my bookshelf that all share the same interpretation: "The expositor's bible commentary, Vol 9 (1981)", "The New Bible Commentary: Revised (1953)", "Notes: on The Gospel of John: Explanatory and Practical, John Clark D.D., (1879)"

Second, Hermeneutic principals i.e. the Laws of Biblical Interpretation require one to look at the entire context and culture to which a passage was first addressed before making interpretive decisions. In the case of Jn. 8:1-11 we know that:

1) The OT Law required both parties of adultery to be stoned, yet in the account in John's Gospel only the woman was brought. (Du. 22:22)

2) The OT Law required two witnesses to condemn a person to death (Du. 17:6-7), and apparently no witnesses were present in the account given in John's gospel.

3) The Talmudic Law added to the requirement that two witnesses must be present to condemn a person to death, the requirement that the same two witnesses had to have previously warned those who then still chose to continue in their sin.

4) The Talmudic Law required a trial for all death penalty cases.

5) The Talmudic Law required the witnesses to throw the first stone, but they apparently were absent.

6) The Roman Law did not permit any death penalty sentence to be carried out without the express approval of the Roman government.


Based on what we know from John's Gospel, and from the history of the first century, there is no reason to assume that Jesus was abolishing any Law because the case brought before him did not meet the legal requirement of any Law that allowed for a death sentence, not Laws from the Torah, nor Laws from the Talmud, nor the Roman Law. It is clear that the Jewish Rulers were trying to trap Jesus; they were not interested in following the Law. Jesus' response was not only legal, but it left the Jewish leaders without even the ability to raise an accusation against him.

Greetings Benelci,


The reference to "private interpretation" means that the person or persons proposing the interpretation cannot support their interpretation "directly" from Scripture. I am familiar with the "Aboliton of the Law of Adultery-Death View" and I find this interpretation as "private' because it cannot be supported by any text of Scripture, i.e. because of "non-practice" the Law is "void". I as well have many scholars (especially) regarding MDR on my library shelves ... and most of my references see "non-practice-law = void" as eisegesis. I believe that John 8 is a "pronouncement" of the death-for-adultery Law of Lev. 20:10 since the Scribes and Pharisees failed to bring the male counterpart to the trail since "the woman was taken in adultery, in the very act." Those who adhere to the adultery-death-void-law whether ancient or modern fail to see the Law as a moral code that is indissoluble.

Huckfinn

quote:

Lastblast continues to make ridiculous claims like these; however, we know from history that under the Roman Law capital punishment was permitted only by the Roman Government by the declaration of the ruling Roman authority. Among the documents we have from history that makes clear this fact is the story of Christ's crucifixion in our bible. Clearly the Jewish Sanhedrin were powerless to exercise a death sentence and had to plead their case with Pilate. Jn. 18:31

quote:

In the story of the woman caught in adultery, That stoning would have violated the Law of the Torah, and the Talmudic Law as well

quote:

However, it is clear from historical records that stoning for adultery was not practiced in the first century; the record of Joseph and Mary is a good biblical example of this.

quote:

the record of Joseph and Mary is a good biblical example of this. Joseph was worrying about bringing public disgrace to Mary; he was not worried about killing her.

quote:

This one of the best stories that really highlights the practice of first Century Judaism in the case of capital punishment for adultery.

quote:

First glaringly absent from this story is the presence of the man who had also committed adultery (according to the Torah both he and the woman were to be stoned)

quote:

Second, the Jewish leaders were clearly trying to trap Jesus by forcing him to either choose capital punishment for the woman and defy the Roman government, or refuse capitol punishment and be accused of defying God's Law.

quote:

This trap would have been meaningless if capitol punishment were regularly being exercised in the case of adultery.

quote:

As far as "fornication" being related to betrothal. We have no records from the 1st - 5th centuries indicating such an understanding, and many that indicate quite the opposite.

quote:

Yes, God hates divorce. So do we.

quote:

From the beginning it was not so. But neither was sin yet when it happened God took steps to deal with it. Men were hard hearted, they still are.

quote:

Let me make sure you are not saying what this actually says. Are you implying that a couple can't even break their engagement (betrothal)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:



Quote Huckfinn: In this section of the sermon Jesus was specifically "contrasting" His interpretation of the Law with that of the Jewish traditional interpretation: Ye have heard it was by them of old." And each time Jesus contradicted the traditional interpretation with the objection "BUT I SAY UNTO YOU.

Quote Benelchi: The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus was NOT contrasting his command against the law, but against the interpretation of the Law by the Jewish Rabbis.

Greetings Benelchi,

It appears to me that you have "repeated" the essence of my post point and then you mark your post as a contradiction to my post. But then you have gone one further by abolishing the Law of Lev. 20:10 death for adultery by your opinion that the Law of Lev. 20:10 was dissolved by the fact that it was "rarely-if-ever-practiced". This is squarely your "pirvate" interpretation and I believe you are in violation of laws of Biblical Interpretation.

Let me first address the ridiculous claim that this is my "private" interpretation. The interpretation I shared is the one most commonly held among Christian scholars, pastors, and laity. Here are just a few references from my bookshelf that all share the same interpretation: "The expositor's bible commentary, Vol 9 (1981)", "The New Bible Commentary: Revised (1953)", "Notes: on The Gospel of John: Explanatory and Practical, John Clark D.D., (1879)"

Second, Hermeneutic principals i.e. the Laws of Biblical Interpretation require one to look at the entire context and culture to which a passage was first addressed before making interpretive decisions. In the case of Jn. 8:1-11 we know that:

1) The OT Law required both parties of adultery to be stoned, yet in the account in John's Gospel only the woman was brought. (Du. 22:22)

2) The OT Law required two witnesses to condemn a person to death (Du. 17:6-7), and apparently no witnesses were present in the account given in John's gospel.

3) The Talmudic Law added to the requirement that two witnesses must be present to condemn a person to death, the requirement that the same two witnesses had to have previously warned those who then still chose to continue in their sin.

4) The Talmudic Law required a trial for all death penalty cases.

5) The Talmudic Law required the witnesses to throw the first stone, but they apparently were absent.

6) The Roman Law did not permit any death penalty sentence to be carried out without the express approval of the Roman government.


Based on what we know from John's Gospel, and from the history of the first century, there is no reason to assume that Jesus was abolishing any Law because the case brought before him did not meet the legal requirement of any Law that allowed for a death sentence, not Laws from the Torah, nor Laws from the Talmud, nor the Roman Law. It is clear that the Jewish Rulers were trying to trap Jesus; they were not interested in following the Law. Jesus' response was not only legal, but it left the Jewish leaders without even the ability to raise an accusation against him.

Greetings Benelci,


The reference to "private interpretation" means that the person or persons proposing the interpretation cannot support their interpretation "directly" from Scripture. I am familiar with the "Aboliton of the Law of Adultery-Death View" and I find this interpretation as "private' because it cannot be supported by any text of Scripture, i.e. because of "non-practice" the Law is "void". I as well have many scholars (especially) regarding MDR on my library shelves ... and most of my references see "non-practice-law = void" as eisegesis. I believe that John 8 is a "pronouncement" of the death-for-adultery Law of Lev. 20:10 since the Scribes and Pharisees failed to bring the male counterpart to the trail since "the woman was taken in adultery, in the very act." Those who adhere to the adultery-death-void-law whether ancient or modern fail to see the Law as a moral code that is indissoluble.

Huckfinn

There are several difficulties with this response:

First, Why is that those on the "no remarriage" side of this debate continue to insist that everyone else's interpretation cannot be supported with scripture when they have provided you with the scriptures to support their point of view? In this case: I provided Du. 16:6-7, Du. 22:22, and (from the previous post) Jn. 18:31

Second, Why do those on the "no remarriage" side of this debate continue to mis-represent what has been said by the other side? In this case I said "Based on what we know from John's Gospel, and from the history of the first century, there is no reason to assume that Jesus was abolishing any Law because the case brought before him did not meet the legal requirement of any Law that allowed for a death sentence". I never said or implied that "non-practice-law = void". All I did was state the fact that a death sentence for adultery was typically not practiced in the first century; I said this because Lastblast had made the false claim that it was; this is far different than what you extrapolated. The idea that simply not practicing a Law makes it void is something I have never seen anyone teach, nor is it something I put forth. Certainly none of the commentaries I referenced teach this!

Last, from what I can tell, it appears you have decided that you are the sole authority in deciding what constitutes a "private interpretation" i.e. you have declared that what is understood by almost the entire Christian church is a "private interpretation" and yours (which is rejected by most of the church) is not? There certainly is no basis in scripture for such a declaration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lastblast
I think Jesus was very clear in Mt. 5:27-28 about how HE defines adultery. Do you believe then, based upon Jesus' view of adultery, that it "fits" with the popular understanding of Mt. 19:9----that one can put away AND marry another based upon their spouse's "adultery"? In other words, Jesus knowing that MOST men/women will be guilty of HIS definition of adultery, gives permission to divorce and marry others----others who will most likely also commit adultery based upon Jesus' definition as well?

quote:

Let me make sure you are not saying what this actually says. Are you implying that a couple can't even break their engagement (betrothal)? I am implying that they should extend grace to each other. Now you tell me, what does that mean?

quote:

ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil

the way i have always heard it taught is that Jesus is emphasizing the seriousness of the offense - even possibly using sarcasm to get his point across. and to answer your question, yes i take Matthew 19:9 at face value.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

quote:

Since we have been taking verses by them selves to "prove" that remarriage is adultery, I noticed one verse (or at least a part of a verse) that you all do not use.

Mat 5:32a but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Without dragging a bunch of other stuff into it, how does just divorcing someone MAKE them commit adultery?

In those days a woman would have an extremely difficult time trying to survive alone, so by divorcing her the man was essentially condemning her to a life of adultery by marrying someone else. That's also why it says that the one who married her is committing adultery also. That proves that she is still bound to her original husband even though he divorced her, so divorce cannot separate the marriage covenant, and all who do so and remarry are committing adultery because they are bound to their original spouse.

Except it nowhere says that a remarriage was involved. A plain reading of the text seems to indicate that just the fact of being divorced caused her to commit adultery, with or without remarriage.

quote:

If you want to bring culture into it, you may wish to also look to the common opinion of the day that female sex drive was much stronger than the male drive (and that in marriage sex was a wife's right and husband's responsibility) and that it referred to the inevitable lusting from unfulfilled desires.

quote:

He told us in the sermon on the mount that to lust after someone (not your spouse) was committing adultery in your heart.

If she has a strong need for her now-divorced husband (who is no longer her spouse), could it be that she is committing adultery in her heart for him?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lastblast
So, you do agree then that when Jesus spoke Mt. 19:9, what He really meant was that a spouse could divorce their spouse just for looking with lust at another person..........and since we both know that is VERY common among ALL people, you then believe Jesus really doesn't hate divorce, but gives an out to almost everyone who is married today. Is this what you believe?